Let's see....a hoax that required every astronaut, every one who worked at NASA, the President, Congress, and every reporter who reported on the story to be involved in a huge conspiracy to perpetrate said hoax, and none of them, not one, broke that silence. Also, the special effects that are employed in movies and t.v. nowadays were not available back then. Have your seen Star Trek the Original Series? That was the status quo for t.v. special effects at the time. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey , a sci-fi movie that was in theaters around that time, didn't depict low-gravity moon walks.

People try to re-write history all the time, denying the Holocaust took place, saying that slaves in the U.S. didn't really have it that bad, etc. Ask yourself: were the people who deny such events there to see them [not] happen? Do they stand to gain something by denying those events, like selling a book, getting themselves on t.v./radio talk shows and the like?

To me, I am flustered to why Stanley Kubrick was needed for the space landing. There would be no other reason but to have him work on the set to fake the moon landing. For a very long time I had no reason not to believe that the moon landing was fake, but after I found out about Stanley Kubrick working on the moon landing, I simply don't know. There is a interesting theory surrounding around The Shining that can be explained in the movie Room 237 about how The Shining is really a confession of the fake moon landing. The link below.
youtube.com/watch?v=_u4A5tJ2j3o

While writing 2001: A Space Oddyssey (1968), Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008) had to research space travel by interviewing several scientists and experts, before it actually had developed to the point where the moonlanding was even possible (compareable with Star Trek: The Motion Picture depicting the color of planet Earth seen from outer space, based on a guess - I'm writing this from my memory so I might be wrong). It was mostly based on theory and advances in space travel up until that point.

At the same time (before the novel by Arthur C. Clarke came out), Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999) was working on the movie production for 2001: A Space Oddyssey (1968, screenplay co-written by Clarke). It could be that, like Arthur C. Clarke's collaboration with quantum scientists and theoretical mathematicians (source needed) to write his novel, Kubrick's vision for enhanced spacetravel (with the moonlanding being an arguably minor part of that) was called upon for the actual moonlanding (1969) that would take place a full year after the release of the movie that he produced and directed.

"Life imitates art"; sometimes it's the other way around, and other times art shapes or dictates life and people get upset by that (understandably so).

In addition to IMHO's excellent response, the idea that Kubrick needed to express a confession in The Shining rather than in public or even in a more overt way (when The Shining is an adaptation of a Stephen King novel and has very clear themes for every element) is conspiratorial gibberish. And if Kubrick was brought in to help fake the moon landing, it would not just be him but hundreds of others who would need to have kept the secret. Organizations are never that ironclad for that long with secrets.

The problem with all conspiracy theories is that when you show the theory wrong, they add, well what about this or this in a never ending game or whack a mole. The rock with the letter C on it, look at the original and no letter C, the “letter” can only be seen in one print and later generation copies of it. Well, what about .....

If it really happened then why hasn't it happened again? If it was so easy to do back then, why haven't we been up there again with all the technology we have now.
With the tech we have nowadays we would be able to build a structure of some kind on the moon to allow prolonged stays for research but instead we stay in the comfort of our close orbit in a space station to conduct research

Why don't go back there? Because there's nothing there, it's simple as that. The composition of the Moon is 50% oxygen (I'm talking about the atom, not the molecule O2), 20% silicon and 13% iron, the rest is traces...
All of this is abundant on Earth so why bother going up in space to get it?
And what use do you have in building a base on a satellite with no atmosphere, almost no gravity, and too far from Earth to get precise and fast data over time?
They went there because sending men in space was revolutionnary, it meant "YEAH WE CAN DO IT!". But there's absolutely no use in sending men to the Moon. However there's a use in sending them to Mars, and NASA is preparing a 200-person team to populate Mars currently, and they put a lot of budget into it.

It wasn't easy. NASA would love to do more manned missions to the Moon, to speak nothing of eventual larger-scale-unmanned and manned missions to Mars and Venus with the hope of laying the groundwork for colonies, but they're expensive. A not-insignificant portion of the nation's GDP went to the moon landing, and it only happened because it was sold as a means of beating the Russians in the space race. The fact that we can operate the very complicated space stations is to no small degree because of what we learned in the moon program.